Hitler, the Nazis and World War Two etc etc

[Phil H]

Isn't and wasn't that the purpose of religeon?

Whether one is religious or not, many of the "processes" of conventional (and some unorthodox) faiths has been to deal with situations like this. Meditation in the east, confession in the catholic church, communion direct with God for many of the protestant faiths.

I don't know whether yyou friends has a faith or not, and how helpful that has been.

I think one of the problems in modern britain is that youth often has no interior structure of thought, no frame of reference for dealing with these things - same reason they cannot stand silence. They can neither pray nor meditate - have no understanding of what is often called "soul", and thus must bear all the issues of life on their own shoulders.

Scorn it or not but the churches and faiths have often been very good at bringing comfort and solace tothose in spiritual agony.

Phil

[Errata]

How can you be a human if you don't feel bad for causing others pain? And people sometimes lose their humanity along the way in a war, but but they won't find their humanity again afterwards until they feel responsibility or guilt for their previous actions, and apologise or seek to make amends.

I have a friend who is going through a terrible time right now because of things he did when he was deployed in Iraq. He killed kids. Some on purpose, some on accident. And it isn't a war crime because of the circumstances, but he is really struggling with it, because he can't apologise. There's no one from which to ask forgiveness, and even if there was, he can't talk about the specifics of any of his missions for a few more years. And he's a dear friend and I hate watching him suffer, but I am proud of the fact that he man enough to suffer over what happened. If he could easily dismiss it, he wouldn't be worth knowing. He should feel bad. And I can forgive him, but it's not my forgiveness he needs.

[Phil H]

Kinng family members because someone has refused an order is one thing - but the nazi regime was capable of inhuman torture - the July plotters, including a Field Marshal were humiliated publicly then hung using piano wire!!

Look at the documentary "The Nazis: A Warning from History" sometime - its on dvd. One ordinary woman is forced to confront the fact that she went to the Gestapo to denounce a neighbour - she wasn't forced, she wasn't approached, she volunteered. Why? because the neighbour was an outsider, perhaps a lesbian - she didn't fit in.

Many of the Nazi murders were against groups who had been persistently characterised as "outsiders"; as sub-human etc etc. So they played on prejudice and natural tendencies.

And the perpetrators? Not in the main intellectuals, but ordinary working class, poorly educated lads - the sort who no doubt had joined the SA; or in Britain, Moseley's fascists; or in France, Action Francais. These were not people, in the main, capable to taking moral stands against authority - and for what.

With infinite respect, heinrich, saying now what you MIGHT do in certain circumstances, and predicting what others might do: when that event has not occured, is not evidence. I respect very much the strength of your feelings and I am sure you are sincere - but we cannot know how you would react in the ultimate circumstances. The people we are talking about had to face the question, no dodging.

I believe the mass shootings in Russia had to be stopped because of the moral effect on the men who carried them out - hence the development of gas.

Look at eugenics - many of the practices introduced in Nazi Germany had been put into effect in some US states, even before 1933. Doctors actually thought killing disabled or incurably sick children humane and a socially resonsible thing to do - resources could be used elsewhere to better effect.

Ever heard of the philospohy of "Utilitarianism"? (Bentham and JS Mill.) Its basis tenet is "the greatest good of the greatest number". Perverted that can be an argumenht for getting rid of minorities and those seen as parasites, or undesirable.

the Nazi's spent the period 1925ish -1939 whipping up such fears, based on an already divided nation (divided against communists or jews or someone/thing else).

Finally, for now, the Russians got around the moral element in atrocity by using Euopean/Slav troops in the east, and Mongol/Sino-ethnic troops in the west. Divide and conquer.

I'm not trying to apologise for war criminals and mass murderers, believe me. But I do think we have to be clear in our understanding.

Phil

[Errata]

This statement is self-contradictory. If a person is forced to do something then their consent, by definition, is absent.
On the other hand, the Germans and Austrians who systematically murdered civilians did not have to be compelled to do so as they were, generally speaking, willing killers. Prejudice does this to people.

Perhaps forced is the wrong word. "While under threat" is probably better. I mean, lets face it, it is impossible to force someone to kill or to torture. I mean, even if a few guys pile on and force your limbs to move in a marionette type fashion, thats still them doing the deed, not you. No, a few of these guys just got a crappy choice to make, and they made it.

And even if they were forced... I mean, I once had a branch fall on my car and it knocked me into another car. Barring psychic powers there was no way for me to avoid what happened, but I apologized to the guy. I felt bad about it. Even though I had no choice, and no culpability, I felt guilt. I was concerned for his welfare. I apologized. I think most of us would. Because there's a way to be a person.

I know some people were under threat. I know some people were young and stupid, or willfully blind. I know some people got caught up, or were a product of their upbringing. I understand that. I know that those things don't make them evil. But it doesn't absolve them either. You be a man, you stand up and you say "I did terrible terrible things. And I thought I had a reason, but in the end people suffered intensely because of my actions, and these people did not deserve to suffer. And I am profoundly sorry for what I did."

And if you mean it, then I'm fine you. I can't speak to whether or not you also have to answer to a court of law, but for the most part sincere regret is enough for me.

[Heinrich]

...
Even if you are forced to commit an evil act, you are responsible for it. ...

This statement is self-contradictory. If a person is forced to do something then their consent, by definition, is absent.
On the other hand, the Germans and Austrians who systematically murdered civilians did not have to be compelled to do so as they were, generally speaking, willing killers. Prejudice does this to people.

[Errata]

Are they really only doing things out of self-preservation if they never take responsibility for their actions, or express regret? Many Nazis did take responsibility for what they did, even though it could result in prosecution. And that in a way in more precious that facing justice for their wartime activities. But those who say "I am not to blame for things I did when I was under threat, and therefore I don't have to apologize" have a serious disconnect with reality. Even if you are forced to commit an evil act, you are responsible for it. And it's completely understandable that a person would be unwilling to sacrifice their family, but they had a choice. A terrible choice, but a choice. And you have to own that choice. Every choice you make, whether joyfully welcomed or dreaded and unfair, it's your choice, and it's your responsibility.

There are any number of things I would rather get shot in the head than do, and I would rather my family also get shot in the head than do. If you tell me I have to have sex with a child or me and my family die, my family would take the bullet gladly. Hopefully. Because theyre taking that bullet. But in the end, I can choose to be responsible for harming a child, or I could choose someone else being responsible for the death of my family. The death of my family would not be my fault, but I would have to learn to live without them. If I decide that having my family still available to me is more important than my morals and the life of a child, then I have to live with that. And If I can't take responsibility for that choice, then I shouldn't make that choice.

[Adam Went]

Phil H:

I think what you say is very interesting and thought-provoking. Certainly many officers who were tried for war crimes used the old "I was just following orders" defence, and in many cases this would simply have been an excuse for their own sadistic tendencies - however, the way the Nazi regime worked, was that if they had refused to carry out the orders of their senior officers (especially if they were in or associated with the SS/Gestapo/Einsatzgruppe) they would have almost certainly been shot themselves ("shoot or be shot"), and then their families - wives, children, mothers, siblings - would have been next.

Look at Klaus Von Stauffenberg, the failed plotter on Hitler's life from July 20, 1944. He and several of his fellow conspirators were executed very soon afterwards - and then family members began being arrested and interrogated.

It sends shivers down the spine to think of what was done to the Goebbels children in the final hours of Berlin simply for their having the misfortune to be born to those particular parents.....though that is a slightly different issue, it shows the extent that some were willing to go to.

So in short, those who showed their own personal willingness and desire to commit cruelty are the worst sort of war criminals who should be dealt with in the most harsh manner, but those smaller man who Phil refers to who did what they were told for no reason other than to protect themselves and their family members, makes it a somewhat more tricky issue.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Robert]

I can see how someone could (self-deceivingly) come to think, "It wasn't me who did all that - I was a different person in those days." But this is a luxury that the victims didn't have. My mother knew a woman who had been in the camps, and every time the documentary makers asked her to appear in one of their programmes, she agreed, despite the awful nightmares that were the inevitable accompaniment, because she felt that she ought to, that she ought to tell the story.

I have no answers either.

[Phil H]

Many people live with many things - in my experience.

War experience itself can be pretty nasty - as can something like working in the police or fire service.

I guess you could say to yourself - I had no option but to do it. It wasn't my fault etc etc. That was then, this is now. Even in Germany after 1945, re-inventing yourself.

Of course, some people are to blame, but many must have been caught up in a nightmare that they did not understand.

Not all people are deeply self-refective or well educated/intellectual. Many poorer, working class, under-priveleged people seem to respond to stimuli, peer pressure and views or basic prejudice. Did the people who protested in Portsmouth UK some years back against a doctor dealing with children (paediatrician) because they thought he/she was a paedophile guilty, or did they just go along with others? Do they regret what they did or just not think about it?

Did Moseley's followers in 1930s britain, often anti-semitic in the way of the times, regret their stance after 1945? Or did they just say "that was then:this is now"?

I have no answers, only questions.

Phil

[Robert]

Hi Phil

Yes, your example of a man participating in an atrocity because he knows that if he refuses, the same fate will be visited on his family, is a tricky one. But I don't believe that people who have a normal moral sense actually exonerate themselves in this way. In other words, once the war was over and their familes were either dead or safe, one would imagine the sense of guilt beginning to gnaw. I'm sure we have all known (non-war) people who blame themselves for things that couldn't conceivably be said to be their fault. This is how most people are. Any Nazi who gunned down or gassed people because it was orders, and who then lived the rest of his life without suicide, mental illness, confession or at least a lifetime devoted to good works, seems very suspect to me. How can these people live with themselves?

[Phil H]

I can (just about) see how a "war criminal" can be perceived at the top and even slightly lower levels of Government - in the Third Reich (Hitler, Goering, Himmler, the Commandant of Aushwitz etc might be examples.

[That said, I have distinct issues with the "justice" at Nuremberg where people were tried for "crimes" that did not exist beforehand.]

At lower and the lowest levels (Demanjuk might be an example - apologies if I have mispelled his name) I have real problems.

How could a man under orders, at least without a suicidal willingness to have themselves killed , demur if ordered to do things under a repressive regime. Tyrannies from Hitler's to Saddam's would have had no compunction in enforcing obedience through killing those who did not obey, and probably their families too.

Under those circumstances, how many of us would (in the event), say no to doing what everyone else around them was doing? Certainly if the alternative would be that we would be despised and not understood by our colleagues and even friends in the unit - who might feel threatened by our attitude -and that we would be tortured or killed?

It is easy to say "I was only obeying orders" is no defence. But when push comes to shove, I think it probably is a justification. The small cog being martyred will almost certainly not change anything, it wouldn't even be the pebble that starts an avalanche.

Post regime morality is easy and sounds great, but is actually a rather nasty settling of scores by the victor.

Muamar Gaddafi probably deserved what he got, so did a Keitel or a Goering, but the little men - and 60 years after the event - let them rest (unless you can specifically demonstrate that they were personally sadistic, murderous or evil).

Phil

Phil

[Adam Went]

Robert & Errata:

Once again it is a difficult topic to debate, and absolutely I agree with most of what you're both saying - if the opportunity is there to bring a war criminal to justice, then it should be done. There's no question at all about that. There's no way that any authorities should catch such a criminal and say "oh well, you're on your deathbed anyway, we'll let you off."

My point of view is more of a "bigger picture" one. Maybe it's because i'm younger and I wasn't around when the Nazi atrocities were still fresh in the minds of people. I was born in the same year that the Berlin Wall came down, perhaps the most important step since 1945 of reconciling the world was one, especially Germany and the Allied nations.

So many major steps forward have been taken in the last few years - i've mentioned the D-Day reunion between those who were shooting at each other 60 years beforehand, as just one example. I've seen Japanese soldiers touring Pearl Harbour with their American counterparts.

Yet every now and then, we hear about the dragging on and on of a trial of an elderly Nazi. And it goes on and on because as the years go by, there's fewer and fewer first hand witnesses. There's more technicalities, more objections, more legal hurdles, more medical considerations.

Eichmann was captured in 1960 and was executed by 1962, as a major example. The Nuremberg war criminal defendants who were sentenced to be executed had their sentences carried out within 18 months of the official German surrender. It just doesn't happen like that now.

It just seems as though with all the reconciling and healing that has happened around the world since that terrible time, every time one of these trials comes up, it drags us backwards again - old wounds, if they ever could be anything resembling healed, are re-opened. Old memories come flooding back, old hatreds, old prejudices. And all for the sake of putting somebody in their 90's behind bars for a few weeks or months that they have left.

The Aribert Heim situation is a prime example, Errata. I don't know what the current status is there but they'd been after him for a long time, and yet there's word that he's been dead since the mid-90's. If he's alive, he would BE in his mid-90's.

Should they just be allowed to get away with it? No, absolutely NOT. No such crime should go unpunished. But there is no viable reason why they couldn't have gone after a 90 year old when they were 80, 70, or 60. Have they really been that good at hiding from everybody for the past 70 years?

As said before, one can't help but get the feeling that they choose certain targets now who they wouldn't have bothered with before because all the major criminals have now either been brought to justice or are dead.

I wonder if the Japanese soldiers who tortured Australian prisoners in Singapore (stories some of my family members have heard first-hand) ever got brought to justice?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Errata]

There isn't that much time left anyway. At the 100 year anniversary of Kristallnacht, no one will be alive who participated in the Nazi persecution of Jews, and the investigations will close for everyone but the academics. Thats in about 30 years, and theres no harm in people pursuing it in the meantime. So what if a guy dies in jail after being sentenced only two weeks earlier? So what if these guys are exposed as Nazis even if they cannot stand trial? The only people it hurts are the Nazis involved, and since all of them have had warrants out for their arrest since the 50s, they clearly have had opportunities to defend themselves if they chose to. I'm not gonna feel bad about some guy living in South America, or Brooklyn or wherever who has been hiding from having to take responsibility for his actions for 60 years. If it gives people peace, or some sense of closure I'm not going to waste my time crying over a guy who could have, at any time, renounced his former affiliations, gone to trial, and get sentenced for time served and gone home.

Israel is the one issuing warrants for Nazi war crimes, and the last one I know of was somewhen in the early 60s for a man they thought had died but didn't. I mean, if there are other Nazi hunters tracking people down to point at them and yell "Nazi!" well, I guess everyone needs a hobby. But if there is no very old warrant, they aren't going to be pursued for trial. And it's still pretty much my firm belief that anyone who makes a lampshade from human skin probably needs to die in jail just on general principle, but that's me.

I mean, I know it seems like these Nazi hunters are random and rabid. And they may be rabid. But it isn't random. And it may not seem like it achieves anything to imprison a 90 year old man for a crime he committed 70 years ago, but it certainly signals to survivors that justice for them is still important. Late as the justice may be. People who commit murder go to jail. And if they run, they go to jail when we find them. And their age or the amount of time since the murder does not alter that. And I don't think you would argue that it should. But war crimes and genocide is not a lesser crime than some dumb kid killing his girlfriend in a rage, and if we think that dumb kid should go to jail when we catch him 30 years later, I don't think we can ask people to give up hunting war criminals. Even if we ourselves would have given up long ago.

Are the guys gonna find anyone major? Probably not. But they aren't looking for just anyone who ever wore a swastika. If they find someone, great. If not, oh well. But it's never a wasted effort. Even the most powerless guy on those lists played a significant part in the systemic eradication of 10 million human beings. Even the smallest player they find is still responsible for any number of deaths. Heim from the Last Nazis was a nobody in the Nazi political structure. But he killed hundreds of people. Because he felt like it. I don't care if he's ancient, or even if he can't be tried. I want to know where a guy like that is, if for no other reason so that I can avoid him. I'd want to know where an old Ted Bundy was.

But most importantly, any effort towards justice and telling victims that they matter, no matter how much time has passed, is never a wasted effort. And we recognize that or else we would have a statute of limitation on murder.

[Robert]

Hi Adam

I don't think we can say "Either hunt down all war criminals or none, because anything else is unfair." The ones who do get hunted down are getting just a taste of punishment before they leave this world, and I don't see why they shouldn't be called to account. Also, I think it's asking too much of people to demand that they be ultra-objective. I would guess that most of these Nazi hunters are Jewish, because the Jews suffered disproportionately at the hands of the Nazis. Those same Jewish Nazi hunters don't seem particularly interested in bringing Japanese war criminals to book - but I don't blame them for that.

[Adam Went]

Errata:

I certainly understand where you're coming from, and i'm extremely sorry indeed to hear what happened to your relatives in the camps, they are unspeakable crimes which were committed and the perpetrators should absolutely be brought to justice, or already have been brought to justice, if it was possible to do so.

However, what we must keep in mind here is that it's well recognised that the last major Nazi to be captured post-WWII was Klaus Barbie, the "Butcher Of Lyon". That was in the 1980's! So it's been a good 25 years since these Nazi hunting organisations have turned up somebody which could be considered a "big fish".

Have you seen a recent series called "The Last Nazis" ? This chronicles the search and attempts to bring to justice the last of the Nazi war criminals. And it's just a never ending circle of being unable, for some reason or another, to bring them to trial, being unable to track them down despite the fact that they are into their 90's, and then if they actually get put on trial, the months and months that it drags on for.

It just seems that they are going after whoever these days, picking up the last crumbs off the plate that are there to be taken.

Yes, the remaining survivors deserve justice, and yes, criminals should be brought to justice, but as I said before, more effort should have been put into hunting them down, as with Eichmann and Mengele, when they were still young enough to stand trial as a war criminal - now, catching them and convicting them so they serve a few weeks or months in prison before they die naturally anyway isn't really achieving anything, IMO.

As I said, it wasn't just the Axis powers who committed war crimes. You won't see the Russian soldier conquerors who repeatedly gang raped and beat innocent German civilians ever brought to justice, for instance.

Cheers,
Adam.